May 9, 2016

Via Power Line, here's the venerable historian Paul Johnson talking up Donald Trump. Some of this is disturbingly extreme...

No one could be a bigger contrast to the spineless, pusillanimous and underdeserving Barack Obama, who has never done a thing for himself and is entirely the creation of reverse discrimination. The fact that he was elected President–not once, but twice–shows how deep-set the rot is and how far along the road to national impotence the country has traveled.

... but Johnson has been putting strong opinions in stark language since long before Donald Trump gave us all a stunning lesson in clear, impudent speech. Maybe Johnson loves Trump because Johnson sees himself in Trump.

Johnson's key point — the part that I agree with — is that it is heartening, in view of the dangers of political correctness that someone has succeeded by being "vulgar, abusive, nasty, rude, boorish and outrageous," and "saying what he thinks and, more important, teaching Americans how to think for themselves again."

I especially like the idea that Trump is teaching us that it works to speak forthrightly about what we think. That might not be true. It might work only for Trump — maybe he has some weird communication genius — but I hope people can absorb and process the lesson and make it work for themselves.

I had a dream about Trump a while back. It may have been part of this dream I told you about on August 3, 2015. This part of the dream isn't in that description, but it's the part I've remembered and thought about over these past 8 months: I thanked him, effusively, for teaching us to have the courage to speak freely.

This is a lesson that works for everyone, whether they share Trump's positions or not. And yet I can see that Trump is teaching the opposite lesson as well — that you can be hated for what you say and that if you say anything that can be called racist/sexist/xeonophobic and people decide to box you into that characterization, that's how they will think of you from then on, and they will spread the word that you are toxic and you require exclusion. But that is why political correctness is so dangerous and why punching through it would be such a benefit.

184 comments:

I guess it depends on whether or not you control the definition of "rudeness" sort of like the definition of "hate" can be manipulated. You have to think about the meaning of words. Taxonomy is politics and classification of certain things you don't like to hear as "rudeness" or "hate" is a seductive pastime because it makes it seem like you have proven you are correct with geometric logic.

Honesty and strong opinions from the right are often characterized as rudeness by the left/the media (I know - that's redundant.) That has resulted in the right presenting strong opinions much less frequently than they should. In Trump's case, too many people are lazy/dishonest about separating his rudeness from his strong opinions.

Rudeness is in the eye of the beholder. That is what college "safe spaces" is all about.

You are not allowed, under the current rules, to say something that another who is a member of a protected class, disagrees with.

We are entering an era when genetics is going to show that people are not equal from birth. "The Blank Slate" is not true, no matter what Stephen Jay Gould wrote.

A lot of feelings are going to be hurt. Worse, a lot of rhetoric is going to be thrown around. Some of it will be accompanied by federal punishment, if for example, you don't like unisex bathrooms and locker rooms.

I don't know why everybody is hung up on stylistic details of Trump. It is actually the substance of what he is saying that is working here. He is saying in stark language and plainly that we don't win anymore and highlights isuse after issue in many different arenas. Remember the young professional wait staff I talked about in another comment at an upscale restaurant and one of them not being able to move out of his parent's house. That is the generation that we have to worry about. Bernie supporters wail that poverty is real, corruption is real, and that rich get too rich. They don't have any solution and they don't have a leader who seems competent to implement any solutions. It is all ephemeral and unrealistic and in true liberal fashion something to superficially lift them up to make them feel good rather than solve the problem. On the other hand, Trump as coarse as his presentation is, has highlighted the issues of the day and providing some direction at solving them. He is being real.

This is like defending a man who shoots someone in the head on the grounds that the victim had high blood pressure—that's a dangerous condition, and releasing some of that pressure would be such a benefit!

I've been rereading Mario Vargas Llosa's A Fish in the Water, his memoir of the Peruvian election of 1990. It is, in my mind, one of the best books about politics ever written.

Llosa describes how the reform movement he led was repeatedly surprised by dark horse candidates. In the 1990 mayoral race for Lima, Llosa's reform candidate was beaten by television celebrity Ricardo Belmont Cassinelli. As a television personality, Cassinelli was known for his casual slangy style. Llosa is very attuned to speaking style and formal or casual language as it signifies politically.

More famously, Llosa was eventually beaten by Alberto Fujimori, a complete unknown before the election cycle began. Llosa describes his failure to appreciate how disenchanted many Peruvians were with the current parties. His attempt to create a fusion party with known political actors drove away many voters who might have supported him as a complete independent.

Knowing his agnosticism would be attacked from both the left and right by Catholic politicians, Llosa (and his socialist opponents) were totally unprepared for Fujimori's support by marginalized evangelical congregations.

I think Trump is more Cassinelli than Fujimori, but there are some interesting parallels on both sides.

A good example would be the interview Trump had today with CNN and Chris Cuomo. Calling out the news media, on air and in real time, is one of the reasons Trump has so much support. http://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2016/05/donald-trump-unloads-cnn-opening-interview-attack-video/

I'm intrigued by the venerable historian aspect of Paul Johnson. I'm reminded of what venerable British historian Arnold Toynbee wrote about the hippies after he toured Haight-Ashbury in 1967. Hunter S. Thompson reported it and I read it as an impressionable child.

Places like Detroit, Chicago, Baltimore exist and are real. There is a very good chance that the future of the US is closer to that than some utopian high tech college campus. I've often wondered how things get so bad and intractable, and the past two decades have been instructive. There comes to be a political and societal set of assumptions that become enforced by all the smart people, they take on a momentum of their own.

Trump is an out sized personality that cannot be ignored, and oddly is showing how trivial, banal and shallow the conventional wisdom is.

What was striking about the Rhodes article was how impotent the Republican's are in the face of 140 characters that the vast majority of people don't read and frankly ignore. Turn off Twitter and the whole foreign policy apparatus of the US collapses.

There is no there there. Trump has walked into a vast empty space and filled it.

Oh, I'm sorry, did you want a safe space? Don't pour poison into the well of public discourse and then expect to be treated with kid gloves or respectful engagement. Trump is a degenerate, and anyone who doesn't see that is themselves a degenerate.

But Trump doesn't necessarily say what he thinks; as he admits, he's playing a role. Moreover, he has had to backtrack so many times, I don't think he even knows what he thinks half of the time--instead, he says what he thinks will please his immediate listeners. In other words, he's an opportunist. And would you find a student in your class who is vulgar, rude, etc., "heartening"? Finally, Trump supporters are not thinking for themselves; rather, they seem incapable of putting the pieces together and seeing Trump for the charlatan he is.

This is like defending a man who shoots someone in the head on the grounds that the victim had high blood pressure—that's a dangerous condition, and releasing some of that pressure would be such a benefit!

LOL. After he does it, I bet Trump says something like "We came, we saw, he died!"

Tim, it's a sign of the times that we don't need to speculate what would happen if Trump actually shot someone. And, of course, he's right: He could literally kill someone on television and his supporters would rationalize it away (the worst of them, the so-called alt-right, would affirmatively support it, saying how tough it shows him to be, and that one is a "cuck" if one's shocked by Trump killing a guy who clearly had it coming to him.

That's why these people aren't worth engaging. I understand Andrew's point about disdain, but the fact is that some things are beyond the pale. There should be more civility and engagement, but that means between, say, Bernie and Cruz. That should have been the debate this year—Sanders v. Cruz would have been a healthy debate to have. But Trump isn't a viewpoint; he's violence and bluster, and he's beyond the pale. Disdain (indeed, scorn and contempt) are the only possible reaction to him of a civilized human being.

I strongly agree with your feelings on this matter. What has surprised me is that the "establishment" has been so clueless about what was happening and refused to pick up the baton. Trump would not be the presumptive GOP nominee if they had.

We literally lose the basis for democracy if disagreement with the "politically correct" opinion becomes grounds for vitriol and loss of livelihood, which it has. Although I must say that this post surprised me terribly, because I thought you supported this social development. You seemed to be saying you did a few years ago.

Phil 3:14 - Trump isn't being called a fascist and a racist because of rude remarks. He is being called a fascist and a racist for saying that we should control immigration, and for advocating better screening of Muslims coming into the country at a time when Muslim factions are involved in a concerted and determined attack on all western institutions.

We should NOT be letting individuals who strongly disapprove of the Constitution into this country. And if we don't have control over immigration, we won't even have a workable country. All these rural counties with large illegal immigrant populations also are dealing with either bankrupt hospitals or stunningly high medical costs. ACA has made the problem worse, unfortunately.

Trump's willingness to come out and state the obvious, knowing that he will be reviled for it, is rather courageous.

Is there really any possible, intellectually coherent and polite response to the yawping hordes we are seeing mobbing professors who dared to counter PC dogma on college campuses?

Ann Althouse said...And yet I can see that Trump is teaching the opposite lesson as well — that you can be hated for what you say and that if you say anything that can be called racist/sexist/xeonophobic and people decide to box you into that characterization, that's how they will think of you from then on, and they will spread the word that you are toxic and you require exclusion.

I read it a little differently--I think Trump's relative success thus far has shown that enough people on the Right (and center-Right) have woken up to the fact that the Left and Media (but I repeat myself) will call any Republican racist/sexist/xenophobic no matter what. Look, they painted Romney, milquetoast Mitt, as those things, for goodness' sake! Mainstream Republicans saying mild and moderate things will be called sexist (etc). There's no sense in pretending otherwise and the 2012 election proved that definitively. The press corps keeps asking "how can someone who says things as extreme as Trump not shock people; he's a monster!" but that same press corp has been calling Republicans monsters for all my adult life! There's no advantage to constantly being on the defensive--to always answering "when did you stop beating your wife"-style questions. It is a genuine shame that it took someone like Trump to actually start going on the offensive (vis a vis the Media & his own messaging) and I am 100% sure that if Trump is defeated the smart set on the Right will draw all the wrong conclusions, but in my quest to find something about which to be hopeful this cycle the possibility that people on the Right will wise up a bit is something, at least.

I don'[t see the point in arguing about whether or not Trump is rude. If it's not obvious to you then you're not going to be convinced. But rude or not, he is aggressive. And such aggressiveness is what's needed to knock down this wall.

Destroy it utterly so that the rest of us don't have to step so carefully through the rubble.

Pace the opening quote, President Obama is not ENTIRELY the result of reverse discrimination, but, overall, I think it's a fair description of phenomenon of President Obama. Professor, if this keeps being relevant, sooner or later I'm going to take an evening to dig up the thread where you admitted you voted for Obama because you thought it would be cool to vote for the black guy. (And let's not kid ourselves, that's the reason most people voted for Obama. No intelligent person doubted he would be a disaster as president.)

Meade - laughed so hard a quick trip to the bathroom became necessary. Appropos in many ways, and very, very witty.

I think the speculation (hinted at in several of Ann's recent posts) that the Trump movement is similar to the Obama movement might be correct. In a way, the public seems to be using presidents to speak to the culture. Has the presidency has become the public's bully pulpit?

exhelodrvr1 said..."People who casually toss around the term degenerate...."

Nothing casual about it.

tim in vermont said..."'degenerate' is *another* word that means, as Humpty Dumpty would have it, exactly what the speaker wants it to mean."

It's a word with a pretty well-established meaning. It should; after all, OED says that it's been standard English since the 1540s, which is later than I'd have called given that it answers to a latin word of the same form and meaning. Still, near-enough five centuries is long enough that I think we all know what it means.

From my edge of my Crater where a year is but an eyeblink I suspect many of you are unaware that a pTb-ism is little more, and often less than the sum total your MSM writes to defeat one of your less communist candidates or even moral heroes. No Captain America permitted. Condense a year's worth of Bush Two paper-cut by paper-cut criticisms into one soundbite and your pTb looks tame. It just all comes in one punch and forces jane average to think with more than her hindbrain, the hindbrain your yellow journalism turns on by images of slaughter houses or refugees dying at sea, rather than arming those citizens so they can overthrow their terrible governments. Instead you cry crocodile tears while you are the enabler even more than these dictatorships, and if you believe in sins of omission all these deaths are on your bloody hands. You idiots. You won't insist all these countries grow up by demanding they deal with their own defense, where all this takes is having their own nuclear arsenal to make everyone very polite. And nukes are cheap-cheap after 75 years of your backward technologies. Then again you want to disarm your citizenry so violent crime skyrockets and your citizens must become slaves to their fears, and therefore slaves of your so-called governments. You idiots, with luck you’ll defeat your pTb and return the Earth to its so called natural state so we can recolonize with a higher form of insect that doesn’t worship dirt.

It's true that rudeness isn't the opposite of political correctness, no matter how you define "rudeness". That's because political correctness isn't simply asking people to be "polite"--it's enforcing a political code for how we communicate and think, so political incorrectness is simply a rejection of that code. Ideally, political incorrectness is valuing truth over what is "politically acceptable."

As an example, saying "avoid majority black neighborhoods because they have too much crime" is politically incorrect--but factually correct. Whether it's rude to point it out is in the eye of the beholder. Saying "black people have an inborn trait that makes them more violent than white people" is not just politically correct but factually incorrect (unless you have evidence to back up that proposition).

Also, you can be both politically correct and rude, if your "rudeness" is directed at those who are politically inconvenient.

There should be more civility and engagement between people who hold legitimate viewpoints. No one contends that a holocaust denier or an actual Stalinist should be afforded the same respect as someone who just happens to believe something that's very wrong. I'm willing to treat moderates and progressives, even the Sanders people with respect and civility, but there are boundaries, and someone like Trump and his supporters are far, far, far beyond the pale.

and that if you say anything that can be called racist/sexist/xenophobic and people decide to box you into that characterization

White male Republicans have been pre-boxed into that characterization before they say a thing. Support Act 10, you hate children. Support welfare reform, you hate African-Americans. Support border control or enforcement of immigration laws, you hate Hispanics. Support the rights of the unborn, you hate women. Don't want your hometown to turn into Brussels, Paris, or Cologne, you're xenophobic.

But Biden can say you can't walk in a 7-11 without running in to a Hindu. Hillary can talk of men going 'off the reservation'. Farrakhan can preach anti-Semitic hate. Jackson can say Hymietown. Gangsta rappers can say, bitch, ho, slut and win awards. College students can spray paint hate in the name of justice on buildings, as long as you're from a certain demographic. And when a comedian can call the current President the n-word at the press dinner, you know that 'free speech' is not applied equally.

It's all bullshit. Trump isn't teaching his supporters anything they don't already know. Maybe it's a revelation on a college campus.

What he is teaching us is that people like Bill Kristol, will use the same tactics toward speech as Democrats when is serves his survival purposes.

"teaching Americans how to think for themselves again." There's that word again. If it takes Trump to teach us how to "think" for ourselves again, we are more screwed than I had assumed.

"I especially like the idea that Trump is teaching us that it works to speak forthrightly about what we think. That might not be true. It might work only for Trump" Your caution is appropriate. If you are interested in making claims that could be refuted by reality, you could turn it into a testable assumption. In which, or how many, states, or workplaces, or media outfits, or schools at any level, will it now "work" to speak forthrightly? Will Prog vilification campaigns cease or diminish, and how would we measure that effect?

"I hope people can absorb and process the lesson and make it work for themselves." Well, that's very nice. Keep hope alive.

"teaching us to have the courage to speak freely. This is a lesson that works for everyone." Progs everywhere stand ready to teach "us" the cost of that lesson.

Alternative pro-Prog hypothesis: Trump's rudeness and bluster prove that the right's defense of free speech against PC is cover for hateful racist nonsense that has no place in the public arena and therefore justify increased efforts to protect underprivileged groups against verbal harassment and remove haters from public spaces. Diversity that makes room for Trumpian nonsense is pointless

HoodlumDoodlum said...I think Trump's relative success thus far has shown that enough people on the Right (and center-Right) have woken up to the fact that the Left and Media (but I repeat myself) will call any Republican racist/sexist/xenophobic no matter what. Look, they painted Romney, milquetoast Mitt, as those things, for goodness' sake!

Exactly! And if any of the other 17 GOP competitors had become the nominee we'd hear the same thing.

Trump says Planned Parenthood does some great things. Still sexist. Says Caitlyn Jenner can use whatever bathroom she wants, still phobic. Says he wants people to come here legally, still anti-Hispanic. What a bunch of crap.

Simon, you are right of course, but as most allegedly smart people, are very wrong in this instance.

Trump knows this better than anyone, and if you were smart you would too. The best way for a carny show to advertise is to have full front page coverage of the degeneracy and horror and danger to the women and children and especially quotes from ministers and the upstanding citizens. The more horrified the bigger the crowd.

Your self righteous proclamations of judgement guarantee that Trump is heard by more people, and when they do hear him will find a funny and entertaining guy who says things that they have been thinking for a long time.

And more dangerously, the sanitized poll tested speech of politicians becomes insufferable.

So keep doing what you are doing, and Trump may even thank you for it.

chickelit: 'm reminded of what venerable British historian Arnold Toynbee wrote about the hippies after he toured Haight-Ashbury in 1967. Hunter S. Thompson reported it and I read it as an impressionable child.

Illustrates how enduring is the intellectual's illusion that "human nature can be changed, and mankind saved, by getting rid of feature X (or Y, or Z) of human existence". Some observe the homicidal mania of religious wars, and call for the abolition of religion. Millions are slaughtered to save the world from the clerics. Others, having decided that nationalism caused the horrors of the 20th century, set out on a project of borderless globalism to secure the peace. ("The emphasis must switch from nationalism to mankind".) In recent years they have been piling up tinder and sparking the flints all over Europe in order to protect its peoples from the scourge of nationalism.

Are these the extreme words you're referring to? Because all of these attributes do apply to Obama.

Spineless: The red line in Syria is a great example of that.

Pusillanimous: Had to look up the definition (the word I remember from a Rutles' song). "Lacking courage and resolution" .... well, he doesn't lack resolution to embrace Iran and Cuba, bow to the Saudi king, reject Great Britain's alliance, lie to the nation about Obamacare. He also knew he couldn't tell the nation that he was going to do that, because he wouldn't have been elected otherwise.

Undeserving: He keeps his Harvard grades sealed; he was elected to head the Harvard Law Review, yet never wrote for it (apparently, IIRR, the only one to do so), boosted into the Senate thanks to a Chicago judge who released confidential divorce records on his rival, and a compliant media uninterested in his friendship with Bill Ayers (who ghosted his biographies and introduced him to the money men at fundraisers -- that last bit came from the NYT).

And yes, a lot of liberal voters, including Wil Wheaton (who bragged about it on Twitter), felt the thrill up their legs to vote for a black man whose record would have been sneered at if he were white. Reverse discrimination, indeed.

Henry said..."Simon, the sum total of your panicky posts makes me more inclined to vote for Trump, just so he can get elected and prove himself unremarkable."

Feel free to join the 30-35% of Americans who will do so.

HoodlumDoodlum said..."I think Trump's relative success thus far has shown that enough people on the Right (and center-Right) have woken up to the fact that the Left and Media (but I repeat myself) will call any Republican racist/sexist/xenophobic no matter what."

It has shown, unfortunately, that there is a larger percentage of the GOP to whom the MSM's stereotype applies than I had thought. I would have called the Buchananites, Klansmen, and alt-right as 5% of the party; turns out that it's much more—unacceptably more.

Paul Johnson is the anti-matter to Howard Zinn. Howard Zinn's "A People's History..." is the most assigned book in high school. I wonder if any of Paul Johnson's books have ever once been assigned in a class room. He's quite readable, and many of the facts and events he recounts you won't find elsewhere........Many of Trump's supporters are white working men who live openly as heterosexuals. This is the most dangerous demographic in America. We can thank the media for their efforts in helping to marginalize this group of dangerous radicals. Only such degenerate lunatics would look to Donald Trump for leadership. Thank God for Hillary Clinton and her brave efforts to enfranchise felons. Donald Trump wants to ban rapists, and Hillary wants to give them the vote. Given such a clear cut moral choice who wouldn't vote for Hillary.

Since when does Donald Trump deserve ANY credit for "speaking clearly"?

Sometimes, Trump speaks "simply": as in, "Build the wall." But those comments are notoriously lacking in serious substance precisely because they are so over-simplified.

In interviews, Trump doesn't speak clearly at all. He rambles; he wanders; he veers off-topic and away from direct responses. Such that reading a transcript -- a good way to measure clear speech -- is infuriating.

And Trump's elemental usage of the language is criminal. By way of just one small example: "Incredible" does not mean excellent or wonderful. "Incredible" means not credible. Unbelievable. Not truthful. Lacking in credibility.

Good lord, Althouse; I have long regarded you as a quality student and a perceptive observer of English usage. Your appraisal of Trump as a clear speaker is... incredible.

Trump is keeping the dialogue at WWF level because that is what works with voters.

His value has been to raise the buried questions about the long plannedl destruction of the USA by a World Governance Conspiracy.

Borderless living in a Welfare State ordered under Obama and Clinton is a sure end to the USA. That is truly creating a planned Apocalypse of riots by invaders.

The Coal generation of cheap electical power that the Obama and Clinton Gang systematically destroyed was the key to the USA's prosperity, so it had to be destroyed, as planned.

And the US Military readiness has ever been the key foundation to survival as a Free Nation on this earth full of Empires, so that too has been systematically destroyed by Obama and Clinton, as planned.

But the WWF crowd just wants entertainment. So Donald keeps them watching and voting. But he still raises the right questions; and if elected he will do what needs to be done.

Right after that is all fixed, we can fire the SumBitch for his using crude WWF entertainment drama that is so embarrassing to us.

Chuck said...And Trump's elemental usage of the language is criminal. By way of just one small example: "Incredible" does not mean excellent or wonderful. "Incredible" means not credible. Unbelievable. Not truthful. Lacking in credibility.

traditionalguy said..."Borderless living in a Welfare State ordered under Obama and Clinton is a sure end to the USA."

I think we're there. I think we can see the end of the Republic from here no matter how it plays out. Just look at the agenda that Tushnet has laid out for a Warren Court redux, and consider that the disastrous foisting of Trump on the GOP has now made it inevitable that Hillary Clinton will appoint two, maybe four justices, to say nothing of innumerable judges, and she'll send those nominees to a Democratic Senate. It's over. And the version of America that will result—I mean, we're not a nation any more. We're a country, but the differences are irreconcilable. I can see us giving divorce a try within a decade. I can see Texas or California leading the crack-up within a decade.

Simon: It has shown, unfortunately, that there is a larger percentage of the GOP to whom the MSM's stereotype applies than I had thought. I would have called the Buchananites, Klansmen, and alt-right as 5% of the party; turns out that it's much more—...

Henry said..."I'll vote for Clinton even if she's running from prison."

I'll vote for Hillary if I have to, if the result in Indiana is in doubt, but I doubt that even Indiana will be that close. I expect to be casting a write-in, although I haven't decided yet for whom, and I'm open to hearing more from Bill Kristol and Gary Johnson.

Here is some Trump-simple language for HoodlumDoodlum; fuck Merriam-Webster Online. They obviously follow the theory that millions of morons misusing a word effectively changes the definition. Like millions of morons voting for Trump.

Chuck said... They obviously follow the theory that millions of morons misusing a word effectively changes the definition.

Who doesn't follow the theory that millions of people using a word or term over time can effectively change the meaning and definition of that word or term, though? If you want to say that "incredible" should still mean just def. 1.) and that not enough time has passed nor enough of a consensus has coalesced to make def. 2.) legitimate, fine...but I'm skeptical that anyone believes no change is every possible, ever.

Johnson is, easily, my favorite historian out there. His books about US history and modern history were great and his book on Intellectuals should be required reading for every single non-Ivy League student in the country.

boycat said..."Get over it. You lost. Or, in your petulance, go vote for Hillary and a leftard Supreme Court."

I have zero qualms about that. Like PJ O’Rourke (whom I suppose is now “GOPe” too?), I think she’s “[t]he second worst thing that could happen to this country. But she’s way behind in second place, you know? She’s wrong about absolutely everything — but she’s wrong within normal parameters! ... I mean, this man just can’t be president of the US. I mean, they got this button, it’s in a briefcase, he’s gonna find it.” If you think that you can bring people around from #NeverTrump just by saying “oh, but that means Hillary wins,” you’re in for a nasty surprise. The polls are brutal, and the outlook worse. Congratulations, you destroyed a 162-year-old institution and handed America over to Hillary Clinton and a progressive, activist Supreme Court that will likely produce the breakup of the United States; mindless vandals. Hope you're proud of yourselves.

It's true that rudeness isn't the opposite of political correctness, no matter how you define "rudeness".

I think it is important also to point out that courtesy or politeness does not require dishonesty. It does not require calling white black or the like.

It is called "political" correctness to distinguish it from factual correctness. As Lenin said back in 1918 or so "It is not correct to that that large numbers of people are starving." (From memory but if anyone wants the exact quote, just ask) When he said that, large numbers were starving and his point was not that they weren't. What was not "correct" was not the fact but the mentioning of the fact.

That is what political correctness is. Something that is factually true but, for political reasons must be left unsaid or denied. It must be left unsaid because pointing it out will embarrass the powers that be.

There seems to be a blind assumption that Hilary will be the candidate in November. Many a slip twixt cup and lip. What happens if Sanders beats her? What happens if she has another stroke or some other medical malfunction?

Nobody ever seems to want to talk about the possibility that Hilary may not be the candidate.

Who then? Sanders? Warren? Biden? Someone else? Who else have they got?

" Congratulations, you destroyed a 162-year-old institution and handed America over to Hillary Clinton and a progressive, activist Supreme Court that will likely produce the breakup of the United States; mindless vandals. Hope you're proud of yourselves."

But I have zero qualms voting for her!

The hysterics of an adolescent girl here folks.

Sometimes I think the best thing to come from Trump crushing Hillary will be these assholes eating truckfuls of crow.

Henry's recommendation is excellent - do get Llosas "Fish in the water.

Maxedoutmommas point is also precise -Althouse is off here, it's not a matter of rudeness, or choice of words - the real problem is that there are consequences, risks and punishments, for speech of some kinds and not others, of some political positions and not others. This is the true tyrrany. It's simply not possible for large parts of the population to speak or even quietly financially support even popular issues, because the Gestapo will make them pay.

Simon as usual seems to assume that the 30-50% of the Republican electorate should go away. Whatever one thinks about Trump, this attitude is fantasy on an otherworldly level.

On Paul Johnson - " Modern Times" was quite popular as required reading even in some high school programs back in the 80's-90s - I can think of some IB (International Baccalaureate) history programs I knew of. But not recently. It is true about the pernicious Zinn.

Toynbee was one of those fellows that tried to fit a system to history. An interesting exercise but in the end, I think futile. The only process or rule history follows is "For want of a horseshoe nail". It is chaos.

"I think it is important also to point out that courtesy or politeness does not require dishonesty. It does not require calling white black or the like."

Yeah, I'd say when it comes to political correctness and incorrectness it's not so much that one is rude or polite, or even true or untrue, but that what one says fits into the "party line" of thinking. Truth or politeness will be independent of that. Sometimes the "politically correct" thing will be rude or polite, true or untrue, and the same goes for whatever is politically incorrect.

The main reason to rebel against the "politically correct" is that truth should prevail, and a code that skews or silences truth in the service of a party line is dangerous in a free society. "Politeness" (or "tact") can have the same problem if it obscures the truth. To the extent that it does not (if you can make a point tactfully and truthfully you have a better chance at winning converts or at least not losing those disposed towards your side), it's helpful. But truth should still be primary.

buwaya puti said..."Simon as usual seems to assume that the 30-50% of the Republican electorate should go away. Whatever one thinks about Trump, this attitude is fantasy on an otherworldly level."

Oh, they don’t have to go away; they can have their candidate. They can vote for Trump in the fall, and they’ll fulminate and fume and puzzle about how come 30% of 40% of the electorate wasn’t enough to win an election. It’s just sad that they had to screw all of us by putting Hillary Clinton in the White House, and the Democrats in firm control of every major institution of government.

"Oh, they don’t have to go away; they can have their candidate. They can vote for Trump in the fall, and they’ll fulminate and fume and puzzle about how come 30% of 40% of the electorate wasn’t enough to win an election. It’s just sad that they had to screw all of us by putting Hillary Clinton in the White House, and the Democrats in firm control of every major institution of government."

rcocean said… “You're not a conservative, you're just another liberal….”

Right. You got me. All those years I posted here, I was just kidding; I was just cleverly hiding my true (liberal) beliefs and feigning conservative positions for my own amusement. Clearly, the real litmus-test for conservatives is not a decade-long consistent record of taking and supporting conservative positions in writing; no, the real test is whether one will abandon all one’s ideological commitments and support a degenerate liberal con-man all for the sake of nominal partisan unity. Yep, that’s it. That’s the ticket.

It has shown, unfortunately, that there is a larger percentage of the GOP to whom the MSM's stereotype applies than I had thought. I would have called the Buchananites, Klansmen, and alt-right as 5% of the party; turns out that it's much more—unacceptably more.

That's right, Simon. Keep flinging the dung against the wall - maybe some of it will stick.

You're completely delusional if you believe the above. The fact that you sneer at such a large percentage of your own fellow citizens makes you just as much of an elitist as any prog. I hope it makes you feel better.

In a way, the public seems to be using presidents to speak to the culture.

The same as it ever was …

No one contends that a holocaust denier or an actual Stalinist should be afforded the same respect as someone who just happens to believe something that's very wrong … there are boundaries, and someone like Trump and his supporters are far, far, far beyond the pale.

Sometimes it’s Stalin; in a lot of cases it’s Hitler; I’ve even seen Pol Pot offered up. Sooner or later someone is going to show up that will hotly declare my political viewpoint as tantamount to support for every unsavory character history has produced. It never fails and is one of the most common cliches in the history of blog commentary. Trump is Stalin. Please.

Been watching cable a lot. All the Sunday panels. They are still clueless and I love them for it. They’re hanging their hats on Trump’s “unfavorables.” They prate about how Trump only got “40%” of the GOP vote. And his “woman and minority” problem. They fret about Trump calling Hillary an “enabler.” They wonder how Trump can possibly overcome Paul Ryan’s opposition. The common narrative is that Trump must suck up to Ryan in order to “unify” the party. And by “unity” they mean Trump has to stop being Trump – which isn’t going to happen. And cannot happen if Trump wants to win. And Trump knows this.

Trump has received more votes than any GOP candidate for POTUS in history and we still have more primaries in the offing. He’s done better with evangelicals, Latinos, independents and crossovers than any other GOP candidate that has opposed him.

When Trump and Ryan meet many things may happen – but Trump changing his campaign style isn’t going to be one of them. And I believe Trump will continue his hammering of illegal immigration, unfair trade agreements, trade deficits, a weakened, depleted military and the danger of terrorists embedded in the Muslim refugee population to be allowed un-vetted into the USA – to name a few of the issues that Trump has pushed into the arena of public debate. Trump would be a fool to stop.

Hey Simon, who won in 2012? Nice guy Romney, or Obama, who accused Romney of mufder, binders full of women, and Joe "Put yall back in chains" Biden?

Who won that election, Simon? The kindergartener, or the calm adult?

You see, some of us Republicans are capable of this moron thing called learning. Simon thinks every voter is a reasonable, civilized intellectual like himself. That's because he's a moron. He has no interest in going for the vote of rank and file normal people. Because he's a loser.

And then this civilized intellectual comes on here hurling the stupidest, most base and simplistic insults I've seen in a while. What a hypocrite.

Simon clearly doesn't want to win elections. He wants to be perfect. Hence the saying, "The perfect is the enemy of the good."

I wouldn't elect Simon for dog-catcher. He'd sell his constituency out over a curse word.

grackle said..."Sometimes it’s Stalin; in a lot of cases it’s Hitler; I’ve even seen Pol Pot offered up. Sooner or later someone is going to show up that will hotly declare my political viewpoint as tantamount to support for every unsavory character history has produced. It never fails and is one of the most common cliches in the history of blog commentary. Trump is Stalin. Please."

I didn't make that comparison; you misread my comment. The most apt comparison for Trump is Mussolini: A crass, brutish, blunt-instrument of a man, hungry for power and not terribly interested in what he has to say or do in order to obtain and retain it.

"When Trump and Ryan meet many things may happen – but Trump changing his campaign style isn’t going to be one of them."

That is certainly correct. There is only one version of Donald Trump, and it's the same one that we've seen all along. It's all Donald all the way down; there is no "more presidential" version of him, there is no more disciplined version, this is it, take it or leave it. And the vast majority of Americans find it repulsive and so will leave it.

I Callahan said..."The fact that you sneer at such a large percentage of your own fellow citizens makes you just as much of an elitist as any prog."

I'm sorry—when did I ever pretend to be any kind of populist? I sneer at anyone who thinks that their opinion and feelings should count for just as much as objective facts and sound reasoning. I think Kevin Williamson put it well on one of his podcasts with Charlie Cooke last year: I'm an elitist, I just happen to hate our current progressive elite and would rather see it replaced by a conservative elite. But the idea that the country should be governed by people who know what they're doing rather than the flighty passions of the masses? That seems obvious to me. You want people who find the Kardashians interesting and think Donald Trump should be President should be calling the shots? I don't think so.

I don't understand the Obama hatred. He has been as successful at putting forward his agenda as Ronald Reagan. Obama achieved much of his agenda after spending all the democrats political capital on Obama Care which cost the House and Senate.

The weak knee chickenhawk checked-pants country-club republicans beholden to the banker/speculators and the offshoring multi-national corporations are the ones who paved the way for Trump. The truth is that besides non-economic social window-dressing (gay, abortion, welfare, guns) there is little difference between the parties who have been successful at playing both ends against the middle because the US electorate are fools.

God love their backward, bigoted and racist attitudes, but the motherfucking Hillbillies have transcended the looking-glass and are wide awake. The neocon nevertrump douchebags continued whining resulted in 100% confirmation that the GOP is anti-American. The democratic party is likewise beholden to Lucifer's money-changers and sweat-shop profiteers. Like the intellectual right, the egghead left continues to support their oppressors for the targeted crumbs that fall.

The Trump nomination is but one successful battle in the war against the oligarchy who owns and runs this country. Bernie is also making progress, but Hillary will likely win out.

If either Trump or Bernie does not win, there will be no one to step up.

I mean, what are they gonna say about him, when he's gone, huh? What are they gonna say? Are they gonna say "he was a kind man"? "He was a wise man"? "He had plans"; "He had wisdom"? Bullshit, man! What are they gonna do when he's gone? What are they gonna turn to me? I mean come on, look at me! Am I gonna set them straight, NO

"But the idea that the country should be governed by people who know what they're doing rather than the flighty passions of the masses? That seems obvious to me."

All of the elites seem to think open borders, "free trade" deals where everyone else gets to sell there stuff here and we don't sell our stuff there, and endless stupid wars where we don't actually kill our enemies are a good idea.

It is almost as if the elites live in gated communities and they don't have to live with the results of their policies.

TCom said...“Who won that election, Simon? The kindergartener, or the calm adult?”

I wasn’t a Romney backer. I held my nose and voted for him, even though he was too moderate. But again, as O’Rourke put it, my differences with him were disagreement within normal parameters. Romney wasn’t conservative enough for me, but he wasn’t a dangerous, degenerate, progressive con-man. If you want to lay blame, start not with Romney (who at least tried, inadequately, to win); put it on McCain (who didn’t even try to win, who ran the 2008 election as if his job were to lose graciously to the first black President). And who, incidentally, in his latest betrayal of conservatives, has now gone squishy on Trump

“You see, some of us Republicans are capable of this moron thing called learning. Simon thinks every voter is a reasonable, civilized intellectual like himself. That's because he's a moron. He has no interest in going for the vote of rank and file normal people. Because he's a loser.”

I have every interest in convincing the rank and file that conservatives have serious arguments that are correct and for which they ought to vote. But if capturing those votes means convincing them, to the contrary, that we are brutish, stupid, unprincipled, crass misogynists, if that’s what it would take to win them, then that isn’t a price worth paying. This is the newchurch Vatican II pope Bergoglio theory of things—just water it down more, debase it further, just make it into a more acceptable version, meet people where they are and ask nothing of them. Frak that.

“Simon clearly doesn't want to win elections.”

I want conservatives to win elections. I’ll settle for libertarians. If Republicans are conservatives or libertarians, swell, but if they aren’t, again, frak ‘em. Gossamer partisan loyalty to an empty label? It’s at best pointless, and at worst associates us with people with whom I have no desire to be associated.

"When Trump and Ryan meet many things may happen – but Trump changing his campaign style isn’t going to be one of them."

One thing that will happen is Ryan will give up his dreams of open borders, or he is out. He will stop supporting TPP or he is out. The GOPe will not be selling out the american people for their 30 pieces of silver anymore. There will never be another Mitt Romney.

Meeeea said…“Sincerely want to know--do you truly believe Cruz (or any establishment R for that matter) could have beaten Clinton?”

An establishment Republican? No, probably not. But Carly would have crushed her, and Cruz or Rubio could have won handily. Hell, maybe some “establishment” Republicans, depending on how broadly one defines that term: Walker, maybe, even Kasich could have beaten her, although I’d have had to hold my nose (again) to vote for yet another moderate.

“And is that Fr. Z in your avatar?!”

I don’t remember. Possibly. Unfortunately, I had to stop reading Fr Z; I couldn’t take any more head-in-sand denial about the Bergoglian crisis.

Did it get through that time? Please tell me it did. The way Dems do so well is they use all the insults and attacks they want, but WE can't do that because it's uncouth. We are sick of your Marquis of Queensbury rules. We are DONE. Your ilk have given us absolutely nothing but endless empty promises.

The gloves are off now. They are not going back on. Ever. Get used to it.

Blogger Achilles said...It is almost as if the elites live in gated communities and they don't have to live with the results of their policies.

They do live in gated communities and they live with the results of their policies by being filthy rich and out of touch. The conservative working poor has bought into this because they think wealth and success is all bootstraps when in reality it's about controlling the system.

Speaking of insults, if Simon really believed insults didn't work, why does he use them so often? I thought Simon would be better than that, calmly explaining to us. But apparently, that hasn't worked for him. He can't even stay civil himself, and expects us to win elections with a milquetoast.

Maybe you could apply this newfound knowledge to politics, Simon. I know you're a slow learner, but try.

OpenID TCom said..."We are sick of your Marquis of Queensbury rules. We are DONE."

This is just perfect: It's Marquess of Queensbury. A marquis is French. John Douglas Marquess Queensberry was Scottish. At any rate, you're correct: You're done. You've broken the GOP, and no one except the Trumpkins is going to vote for Trump. The GOP will become a derelict, maybe a third party will emerge (maybe the libertarian party will expand, who can foresee?) and, alas, the Democratic Party will rule unchallenged for a generation, because, again, it doesn't matter how pissed you are, you are a minority of a minority, whether you realize it or not, and there's no way for you to count to a majority. So yes: You're done. You have ceased to exist as a serious force in American public life.

"Your ilk have given us absolutely nothing but endless empty promises."

"My ilk" have never been in control—again, you continue to confuse me with establishment squishes like Johns Boehner and McCain. Ironically, it is those very same partisan squishes who are now running to Trump, and their same "partisanship above all else, the party comes first" rhetoric that you are aping.

grackle said..."But I believe Trump will beat Hillary in a landslide. Speculation is the funest thing ever!"

Heh. Back in the real world, though, the question is just how many GOP Senators will Trump take down with him? "Because of Trump’s candidacy, national Democrats believe they can expand their Senate map beyond the battleground states like Illinois, Wisconsin, Ohio and New Hampshire to win the five seats they need. Key forecasters now think Republican incumbents in states like Arizona, North Carolina and Missouri, considered safe a year ago, are now vulnerable."

Mussolini wasn't a crass, brutish, blunt instrument.To say this is ignorant.He was a genuine intellectual, a student (an actual student) of Pareto (yes THAT Pareto), of some of the more theoretical socialists, a friend and ally of D'Annunzio, still an icon of Italian literature, an actual political theorist himself, with his own "third way" ideas that he published. He was an actual man of letters and a polished public speaker. A very impressive fellow in every way, except of course that he was dreadfully wrong. His movement was brutal, but extremely sophisticated in its own way. It hadn't the crudeness of the Nazis over the Alps. You just need to compare their music to see the difference.Compare "Giovanezza" to "Horst Wessel". And consider "Faccetta Nera", probably THE popular fascist tune. That thing would cause any Nazi head to explode, and I suspect many Trumpist ones too. After all, there's the bit about bringing Ethiopian girls to Rome, and making them Roman. An interesting idea, given current immigration issues.

On ABC's This WeekKatrina Vanden Heuvel said Trump is using 'dog whistle' racism just like Reagan did while she was talking about Paul Ryan. She linked the whole party to racism, even Ryan, by pointing out that Ryan is a Reagan disciple.

In other words you don't even have to speak it, to be accused by the left.

Ryan can go on Television and condemn Trump and the Muslim ban saying, "That's not who we are!", and then get railroaded on the Sunday shows by Feminists.

That's why the 'Trumpkins' are in a go fuck yourself mood; and why Ryan is a proven pussy.

Simon wrote:The GOP will become a derelict, maybe a third party will emerge (maybe the libertarian party will expand, who can foresee?) and, alas, the Democratic Party will rule unchallenged for a generation, because, again, it doesn't matter how pissed you are, you are a minority of a minority, whether you realize it or not, and there's no way for you to count to a majority.

I dont believe that. People, usually liberals, always say that the republican party is done for. They said that after Obama won reelection. Then Repubs took over the House and Senate. This is going to be a downer for sure. But if Trump implodes we are going to look back and say "what were we thinking" People like Sarah Palin and Hannity will,hopefully, go the way of the dodo. And then we go back to fighting democrats.

TCom wrote:Your ilk have given us absolutely nothing but endless empty promises.

I think you'll find that if Trump is elected taht it will be him that gives you nothing but endless empty promises. And yes, I get that repubs are often RINO's and say they are for small govt but then vote for big govt. But is your issue that they should be for small govt and are thus hypocrites, or is the issue that they should be for big govt? Beucase trump isn't exactly promising you Republican things. I dont, then get, why you'd be mad at Republicnas if, at the end of the day the ones you are so mad at essentially are giving you what Trump would give you anyway.

jr565 said…“I don’t believe that. People, usually liberals, always say that the republican party is done for. They said that after Obama won reelection.”

Obama united the Republican Party; Trump has broken it beyond repair. That’s the difference. Progressives believed that the party was doomed because, over time, its demographic base was shrinking; I’m asserting that it’s already done because officeholders who don’t denounce Trump will lose those of us who find him abhorrent, and those who do will lose the Trumpkins. So they have two choices, either of which alienates a fatal percentage of voters, and as their vote divides, the Democrats come through the middle.

“But if Trump implodes we are going to look back and say ‘what were we thinking’ People like Sarah Palin and Hannity will,hopefully, go the way of the dodo. And then we go back to fighting democrats.”

I’d like to think that after the election, we’ll be able to take back the GOP and purge these people, but I just don’t see it happening. My guess is that after Trump is crushed, they will come up with a dolchstoßlegende (or possibly several), and instead of slinking away, they’ll cling to their myth and to their control of the party. So the GOP will end ignominiously as a Buchananite/Trumpist remnant, and conservatives and libertarians will filter away into one or more third parties in order to carry on the fight against Democrats. Maybe it’s for the best, I don’t know. Sometimes political parties just die—even in America. Starting from scratch is hard, but it's better in the long-run if that's the price we pay to completely disassociate ourselves from the Trump clowns.

Trump has won. He got 63% of the popular vote leading to his landslide victory over Clinton. The puntitocrasy is still processing it. Forgotten, sadly, are the millions of comments posted on such sites as Althouse and National Review predicting not only that Trump would lose but that he would take down the Senate and even House with him. Oh, how wrong they all were but, fortunately for them, they can hide from their big, worthless statements in the great sea of anonymity.

That's why I'm posting today: to hold them accountable for their worthless predictions even as they are making them with great bombast and certainty. In short, you all were wrong.

"That's why I'm posting today: to hold them accountable for their worthless predictions even as they are making them with great bombast and certainty. In short, you all were wrong."

Fair enough--I predict he will lose this fall, based on a number of issues both particular to Trump and general to any GOP candidate this year. We'll see how it turns out--he is unpredictable (now adopting tax increases to appeal to the Democrats, though this may alienate conservatives) and Clinton is weak, so I could be proven wrong. If we weren't all strangers on the Internet we could make wagers on this, but we'll have to settle for the comment section the next day.

I think you'll find that if Trump is elected taht it will be him that gives you nothing but endless empty promises.

I don't know if this is true.

Sure, there are always going to be empty promises. Are we going to win so much that we will get tired of winning? No.

However, there are really only two "promises" I need him to keep to make me glad he was elected over Hillary.

1) Border Control

2) Putting more conservative judges on the Supreme Court.

On those two, I know exactly what Hillary will do. With Trump, I don't know for sure because he has never held office. Unlike all the nevertrump folks out there who know exactly what he is going to do.

"However, there are really only two "promises" I need him to keep to make me glad he was elected over Hillary.

1) Border Control

2) Putting more conservative judges on the Supreme Court."

I wouldn't get your hopes up about the judges, as at this point the chances of getting a conservative on the Court will be a crap shoot. Hillary is about as likely to do that by accident as a Republican will be to do it on purpose.

As for the border, never fear--between them, Hillary and Trump are about to drive this country into such a deep recession that more illegals will be filtering out of this country than into it. Problem solved!

Well there you have it. As if any more proof was needed that Simon is as nutty as a fruitcake he thinks Cruz could have won the general. Was there ever a more charmless, creepy candidate? But at least he was a bible thumper. Yep that'll win over the folks in spite of his obvious pathological level of ambition.

"Nobody ever seems to want to talk about the possibility that Hilary may not be the candidate.

Who then? Sanders? Warren? Biden? Someone else? Who else have they got?"

I think there is a fair chance of this and have said so before. If she drops out to avoid indictment (as health of course) , I could see Biden stepping in. Probably not Bernie as he is as interested in breaking rice bowls as Trump.

The Democrats have no problem with this as shown in the Lautenberg caper in New Jersey.

Once written, twice... said..."Does anyone doubt that Ann would have been fawning all over Adolf if she lived in Germany back in the early 1930s?"

Apparently you don't. But then you seem very mistaken and very bigoted, Oncewrittentwice. If you actually knew anything significant about her, you might know that her ancestors in Europe were from somewhere that would have made them, to the Nazi state in the 1930s, untermenschen — just like Jews, Poles, Serbs, Czechs, and others.

More importantly, Oncewrittentwice, your hypothetical question would be more useful by asking yourself: If I had lived in Germany back in the early 1930's, how would I have behaved?

And even today, Oncewrittentwice, would you first take the plank out of your own eye, so you could see clearly enough to remove the speck from Ann Althouse's eye?

I don't understand the Obama hatred. He has been as successful at putting forward his agenda as Ronald Reagan. Obama achieved much of his agenda after spending all the democrats political capital on Obama Care which cost the House and Senate.

Because his agenda sucks? Because a lot of us don't want our country "fundamentally transformed" to look like Europe? Because a lot of us like liberty and freedom?

Cruz couldn't even convince REPUBLICANS with his Ur-Conservative pontification, and Simon still can't get the hint.

He'd rather cherry pick that I didn't use the correct regional spelling of Marquees. Because he is very intellectual.

Simon, you're a poster boy for an intellectual without a shred of street smarts. If you were serious about wanting to win elections with nothing but reasonable discussion, you'd be calling for eliminating universal suffrage so the normie vote doesn't drown you out at the ballot box.

But since we do have universal suffrage, I choose to make decisions in the world that actually exists, not the make believe one in my head. Reality is messy, I know. Unlike that perfect reality on your head. But reality is actually real. You should try it sometime!

@Simon, thank you for your answer. I just don't see it the same way. The other fully R candidates were so deeply hated by even the center-left I saw no path to victory for them. (And for some reason I can't put my finger on, I had the feeling Cruz would have a personal meltdown of some sort and not make it through the demands of the general campaign.) And 'moderate' R's were sure to be Romney and McCain type losses again. Regardless, we are where we are, and must defeat Hillary, or whomever the D ticket ends up being.

We agree on Fr. Z though! I stopped reading him a few years ago. I was watching the Papal announcement live at a law school, and the instant Bergoglio walked out (and I had no prior opinion on him whatsoever) I had such an unexplainable feeling of dread, and sense of being in the presence of evil.

There are (albeit non clergy) bloggers finally just coming out and stating it--he is not Catholic. In case you don't already read these, here are excerpts and links: (Apologies Prof. Althouse, I don't have time to edit them down further.)

"I believe Bergoglio is actually at war with God. All of the signs and tells are there – by the man’s own words." Barnhardt.biz

And "The Bear" at corbiniansbear.blogspot: "...Gradually, it became apparent that Pope Francis was more interested in stamping his own idiosyncratic beliefs and practices on the ancient faith, rather than upholding it. Furthermore, his behavior sometimes crossed the line from eccentric to bizarre.

...His methods seemed very much at odds with his image as "Francis the Humble." ...His "pastoral" approach does not help Catholics conform themselves to the Church, but, rather, the Church to conform itself to Catholics, and not at their best. It is a transparent scam to split practice from dogma to avoid the bother (actually, impossibility) of changing the dogma. Dogma is simply to wither away into desuetude. ...

...He apparently sees no reason at all for anyone to covert to the Catholic faith.

Pope Francis even spoiled the practice of praying for the Pope's intentions. Now they are an excuse for cheesy, manipulative videos mostly promoting one left-wing cause or another, but never anything recognizably Catholic. The editorial board for these videos consists of the predictable interfaith salad: Jew, Moslem, Evangelical. And a Jesuit.

Pope Francis has climbed atop the bones of St. Peter in order to displace the Dalai Lama as the Generic Spiritual Leader of the World. ...

The YouTube Pontificate. How small. The Sound Byte Pontificate. How sad. The Conscience Pontificate. How dangerous.

...That's right. The Bear does not believe the Pope is Catholic. Unless replacing the ancient faith with your personal hobbyhorses counts as Catholic.

The Bear believes people vastly underestimate the destructiveness of Pope Francis. ...the Bear has a sense that only Pope Francis has his knife to the Church's very throat. He is not wrong in one, or a few particulars, he is wrong period. Wrong about everything. Wrong in his foundation. Wrong for the job.

The Bear also realizes that he has come along at a very troubling time in Church history. A Church crisis in the 21st century is not a crisis in the 8th century. In our day, the walls of Jerusalem are down and the enemy is in the sanctuary. The defenders have nearly all fled. We are but shadows of the old Catholics who fought heresy and Turks. In other words, history ain't what it used to be."Corbiniansbear.blogspot.com

"How quintessentially Marxist. And you wonder why conservatives want nothing to do with your candidate."

So you deny that the system is actively selling us out to global interests, crippling our free agency?

No wonder Republican voters wanted nothing to do with your candidate! You won't even admit the system is killing us! These ideological perfectionists are going to be the death of us, people. And ever notice none of them have the slightest sense of humor?

I want realists in office for once. These ideologues are insufferable.

"So you deny that the system is actively selling us out to global interests, crippling our free agency? . . . You won't even admit the system is killing us! These ideological perfectionists are going to be the death of us, people. And ever notice none of them have the slightest sense of humor? . . . These ideologues are insufferable." Thanks for the humorous, non-ideological insight. It is helpful to the rest of us to know what Trump supporters are "thinking."

Considering everything, a slightly tweaked "Faccetta Nera" would work very nicely for the various foreign interventionist factions, including the ones I like. Its catchy, and as far as it goes, quite correct - there certainly are a fair number of fair Ethiopians. Bell'abissina works.

Naw. What Trump has done is take over the GOP. I believe Trump is in the process of repairing a GOP that in recent years has been completely dismissive of its constituents.

About conservatism and the GOP: The conservative faction became prominent during the ill-fated Goldwater campaign. Goldwater was the conservative’s dream ideological candidate and of course lost big-time. Sort of like Cruz. Who also would have lost. Losing is usually what happens whenever ideology overrides reality. But the conservative wing has held sway since then despite Goldwater’s rejection by the voters. And in the meantime the social conservatives added their load to the already leaking GOP boat. With Trump the GOP seems to be swinging around to the old reliables: A strong national defense and a strong economy. The blow to PC is a bonus.

That's about to change in a big way if he plans to fund a fall campaign. I don't think he's planning to run the general election based solely on free media.

The commentor must be referring to Trump offering to raise campaign funds for the RNC. A portion of those funds always goes to the GOP nominee. This is standard procedure that the commentor is trying to promote as something unusual and ominous.

Traditionally, the nominee creates a joint fundraising account with the RNC, which allows the candidate to simultaneously raise money for their own campaign, the national party and select state parties.

http://tinyurl.com/z8vxybo

Of course, the RNC could turn Trump’s offer down but I have a sneaky feeling that Reince Priebus isn’t going to turn it down.

I wonder how much money that Paul Ryan will raise for the GOP. Maybe he’ll have time to think about funds for the GOP to help GOP congressional candidates in the general election after he decides whether or not to support his party’s nominee.

Eric said..."If Trump changes on this and starts talking about putting liberals on the court, I'm gone."

You mean like when he talked about putting his liberal sister on the court? What was it he said about her—that she'd be amazing or something?

Gahrie said..."If Trump wasn't in the race, people like Simon would be talking about Cruz the way they talk about Trump."

You're being preposterous. I happily voted for Cruz.

I Callahan said..."[Why don't people like Obama] Because his agenda sucks? Because a lot of us don't want our country "fundamentally transformed" to look like Europe? Because a lot of us like liberty and freedom?"

Amen.

TCom said..."Simon, you're a poster boy for an intellectual without a shred of street smarts."

Thankyou, that's very kind of you. Alas, I fear that you meant that as an insult; it isn't, but there we are.

Meeeea said..."We agree on Fr. Z though! I stopped reading him a few years ago. I was watching the Papal announcement live at a law school, and the instant Bergoglio walked out (and I had no prior opinion on him whatsoever) I had such an unexplainable feeling of dread, and sense of being in the presence of evil."

I have heard reactions like that from so many people; Steve Skojec, who does yeoman's work at One Peter Five stands out in mind. Just an immediate gut feeling of dread. My trajectory is more like that of the Remnant and St. Corbinian's Bear (to whose post you allude): I thought it was a little tacky for people like Rorate to pillory him as soon as he walked out onto the loggia, but time and events have proven them correct, and I would perhaps go further even than the Bear. To say that Bergoglio isn't a Catholic is merely to state the obvious, but I'm not sure that he's even a Christian. Alas, the only thing that we can say (despite the seductive temptations of sedevacantism) is that he is, for now, pope.

"And 'moderate' R's were sure to be Romney and McCain type losses again."

I don't know that I can agree with that; "sure"? The dynamics of the 2016 election would have been very different. Hillary is not Obama; Romney would have beaten her had she been the 2012 nominee. I would have held my nose for Kasich, and it's plausible that he'd have won. But I would far rather have voted for Carly or Cruz, and frankly—a write-in still being my most likely vote—I may yet do so.

"Regardless, we are where we are, and must defeat Hillary, or whomever the D ticket ends up being."

I can't agree with this. I think Ben Howe is basically right: Conservatism cannot survive association with Donald Trump. If we're to have any hope of competing in 2020, we have to make sure that no one can possibly accuse conservatism of having allied itself to or having anything to do with Trump; we need to make as clear as possible that he isn't one of ours and we don't back him, because if we don't, he'll drag us down with him when this barge-fire sinks. Hillary's going to be the next President; the only question is whether we destroy our credibility in the process.

It's so funny to me that the Trumpkins STILL can't seem to make up their minds, veering wildly between "#NeverTrump people are betraying conservatism by not backing Trump" (i.e. "Trump's a conservative, why won't you join him") and "#NeverTrump people are rigidly conservative" (i.e. "Trump's a pragmatist, why won't you stop being such inflexible conservatives").

Simon said...It has shown, unfortunately, that there is a larger percentage of the GOP to whom the MSM's stereotype applies than I had thought. I would have called the Buchananites, Klansmen, and alt-right as 5% of the party; turns out that it's much more—unacceptably more.

Simon didn't leave the Republican party: the Republican party left him.

I agree with pm317 that the substance of Trump's message is part of what makes him popular, but the style works, too. It's the same style that has kept Judith Sheindlin on the air since 1996. The ratings of "Judge Judy" just keep going up and up. I think the reason for her popularity is fairly simple: sometimes the soul cries out for someone who's willing to call an idiot an idiot.

W and guys like Ryan and McConnell killed off the GOP. They are pro government and anti America. Been good for them and their cohorts but bad for the rest. Open borders, endless war in Muslimland, and sending American jobs to other countries. It's worked well for all of them personally.

I'm a big fan of Paul Johnson. If you read nothing but his works for a year (MODERN TIMES, HISTORY OF CHRISTIANITY, HISTORY OF THE JEWS), etc., you would probably have a better knowledge of history than the average college grad these days (especially the members of the Dumbest Generation who love Bernie Sanders).

I mean, emotionalism cuts both ways, though. Trump's righteous anger plays well but I think even his supporters will admit there's not exactly a deep, strong base of long-held/long-believed principles underneath Trump.

So what happens when, say, the Media hypes some poor family (with children) when die in the desert trying to come to American (illegally) to make a better life for themselves (fleeing terrible persecution, no doubt)? What happens when there's some awful high profile murder committed with a firearm, or a school shooting or something equally terrible?

Does Trump say "that's a terrible thing, but my policy is what's best overall and it won't change?" Does he instead have a knee-jerk reaction and buy the line the Media will sell (open the border! ban the guns!)? What does Trump do when his ideas (such as they are) aren't popular--does he fight hard to convince the masses, or does he cave, backtrack, and swing the other way entirely (to the praise & adulation of the Media & Left)?

If you're someone who values their 2A rights, how secure should you feel with a President Trump? I'm not sure there's a good case to be made that the answer is "very." On the other hand you KNOW where you stand with Bill's wife...

"The commentor must be referring to Trump offering to raise campaign funds for the RNC. A portion of those funds always goes to the GOP nominee. This is standard procedure that the commentor is trying to promote as something unusual and ominous."

Actually the commenter was trying to promote this as standard procedure. They all seek donors, big and small. Frankly, he'd be stupid not to raise money. Campaign funds aren't just for television advertising.

HoodlumDoodlum said..."Simon didn't leave the Republican party: the Republican party left him."

Conceive of it however you like in terms of the big picture—but Simon did very much leave the Republican party last Wednesday. I won't even be voting for the down-ticket candidates unless I'm satisfied that they have personally and publicly condemned Trump.

Henry said..."Simon wrote '#NeverTrump. Never, ever, in any circumstances, for any reason.' A write-in vote is a lousy fig leaf. If you really mean it, show some backbone and vote for the Democrat."

As I said above (and not for the first time): “I'll vote for Hillary if I have to, if the result in Indiana is in doubt, but I doubt that even Indiana will be that close. I expect to be casting a write-in….” Much as I loathe Hillary and know exactly what four years of year means for America (probably better than most of the Trumpkins, I'd wager), voting for her is STILL a better outcome than Trump getting to associate himself with conservatism, or doing better than he could. The optimal scenario would be that he loses fifty states, he and his supporters scuttle away in disgrace, and conservatives reclaim the GOP. Won't happen (also discussed upthread), but that would be the optimal result.

It's [degenerate] a word with a pretty well-established meaning. It should; after all, OED says that it's been standard English since the 1540s, which is later than I'd have called given that it answers to a latin word of the same form and meaning. Still, near-enough five centuries is long enough that I think we all know what it means. - Simon

Wow, talk about a world class point misser! So any "true Scotsman" knows what it means. I should have known. I am afraid the gap is too wide here to cross for either of us.

I'll vote for Hillary if I have to, if the result in Indiana is in doubt, but I doubt that even Indiana will be that close. I expect to be casting a write-in….”

I am sure you will. Hillary will be sure to protect the rice bowls of the GOP establishment. She knows the game. Plus maybe the ME is out of new sources of refuguees, so what further harm could she do? I am sure that the rapist won't be allowed to prey on the staff there as he has an office in the White House again.

Anything can happen. Some terrorist attack could happen. Huma may squeal. Clinton could get sick. Someone may shoot Trump. China may shoot at someone. Arabia may have a coup. (And huh, looks like Duterte is winning in PI).

"Simon, you're a poster boy for an intellectual without a shred of street smarts."

Somebody please point me to the evidence that Simon is an "intellectual" unless you mean in the sense that he accepts uncritically whatever conclusions drawn that he reads from people with the proper credentials and can recite them back ad nauseam means he is one.

tim: an intellectual is someone who lives inside his head and reads books to understand how the world works. Another word for this is a fool or useful idiot. This is the opposite of someone who interacts with people, places and things "out in the world" thereby developing street smarts and/or common sense.

tim in vermont said…“I am sure you will. Hillary will be sure to protect the rice bowls of the GOP establishment.”

There isn’t going to be a “GOP establishment” after this election—they’re losing their jobs, as I’ve already said. They’ll have to choose between alienating the Trump people or conservatives, neither of whom will vote for them without some showing of loyalty, and so alienate the other, losing their races. When we warned that Trump would destroy the downticket races, what did you think we meant?

“Wow, talk about a world class point misser!”

Point-misser. It’s a compound, it takes a hyphen.

buwaya said…: “Anything can happen. Some terrorist attack could happen. Huma may squeal. Clinton could get sick. Someone may shoot Trump. China may shoot at someone. Arabia may have a coup…”

… SMOD could arrive ahead of expectations.

If Huma squeals, well, good on Hillary. Well done. ;) As much as Trump would hate to be beaten by a woman, somehow, I think thathe and his gynophobic supporters would be all the more incensed to be beaten by a woman who likes women, and there's some piquancy to that. (Pun unintended, but delightful.)

Howard said..."An intellectual is someone who lives inside his head and reads books to understand how the world works."

Again, I appreciate the unintended compliment, and the fact that you and people like Bergoglio think it's an insult is even more flattering. The scorn of people who think such things to be criticism is terribly flattering. "He's one of them readin' people! He likes 'the books' an' such. By gawly, I bets he might even be able to wraight!"

Believe me Simon, it's not a compliment. It's also not the fact that you read books, everyone reads books. Intellectuals waste time with books on mental masturbation that reasures them that the world is well ordered and understandable. The parts that can't be explained to the intellectual are papered over by god or some other myth.

People with street smarts are reading repair manuals, the Merck manual, basic engineering and mechanics, jeppesen manuals, etc. you know, books that help you get stuff done. Intellectuals do not actively engage with the world in the weeds where the rubber meets the road at the school of hard knocks. You are so dense that you don't realize that being "smart" starts with knowing how stupid you actually are.

Do you think an intellectual invented Murphy's Law? Do you know about the aviation exception to Murphy's Law? It's where you bumble along making the same mistakes over and over again but nothing happens because the "system" is relatively stable. This leads to the arrogance of ignorance that gives the greatest feeling of confidence just before you auger in. These are the sorts of laws that are written in blood. The only gray-matter involved is splattered on the asphalt.

If I may: If you feel Trump is to Republicans as Bergoglio is to Catholicism, I beg to differ. Trump loves this country, and has repeatedly stated if you don't have borders, you don't have a country. He wants to keep America sovereign and strong. Conversely, Bergoglio's acts, stupid airplane utterances, hiring of and close personal relationships with evil woman-hating people such as Jeffrey Sachs, and word salad encyclicals has been to belittle, weaken, and tear apart the 2,000 y.o. borders (if you will) that define the Church.

We are all tired of being silenced,of guarding our words at dinner parties.Whether he wins or loses in a landslide-I believe the later-the political culture and trajectory of the culture has changed forever.TRUMP '16!

It gets better Phil. I live in DC and can sense the apprehension and disdain the Clinton robots have for poor little, low education, crypto-fascist Trumpters. We'll give them all an education come November.